Congress Ready To Ok Public Housing Overhaul

March 27, 1997|By Mike Dorning, Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON — After foundering in the final days of the last Congress, an ambitious plan to overhaul the nation's Depression-era public housing laws has re-emerged as a Republican priority. This time, even Democrats are optimistic that it will pass in some form.

The legislation gives local authorities greater flexibility to tear down dilapidated, drug-infested projects and eases federal regulations in order to encourage a mix of more working families among public housing tenants.

FOR THE RECORD - Additional material published March 29, 1997:Corrections and clarifications.Due to an erroneous summary furnished by the staff of the bill's sponsor, an article Thursday incorrectly reported a provision in Rep. Rick Lazio's (R-N.Y.) proposed public housing bill. The legislation would require public housing authorities annually to give tenants the choice of either an income-based rent not to exceed 30 percent of their adjusted income or a flat, market-rate rent for their units. The Tribune regrets the error.

The chances for passage have improved because the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.), is showing greater flexibility. Most significantly, he has relaxed demands to eliminate a 28-year-old law that assists the poorest public housing tenants by linking rents to income.

In both practical and symbolic terms, Chicago is at the center of the legislative debate, with the State Street Corridor, the Henry Horner Homes and Cabrini Green serving as high-rise emblems of failure in housing policy.

Politically, the Republican leadership has raised the prominence of the legislation by making it the second bill introduced this session in the House. Meanwhile, U.S. Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the son of a vigorous defender of the welfare state, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, also has promised to press for passage of the legislation in some form.

Although Cuomo will be insisting on some changes, "We already have a solid foundation of agreement," he told a House panel earlier this month.

"I believe we can enact historic legislation this year. I will work day and night . . . to obtain passage of a constructive, and definitive public housing reform bill," Cuomo said.

Indeed, one liberal housing lobbyist adamantly opposed to the bill said, "The advice we're getting is this time there's going to be a bill, so work on fixes."

But despite accord on the need to reshape existing laws, the legislation exposes rifts between the two parties on housing policy.

The Republican-drafted legislation puts the emphasis on an attempt to revitalize the communities within projects by bringing in more working poor families.

"The issue boils down to role models," said Lazio, the bill's sponsor. "It doesn't help the unemployed to move up the economic ladder if all the people they are surrounded by are also unemployed."

And in stressing that public housing is a temporary step, the GOP finds Democratic agreement but also concerns that the impact of the proposed legal changes could give the poorest residents short shrift. Further, there is the reality of a new economic environment, one in which financial aid to many is being cut under the new welfare law.

"After you cut more than 20 percent of the public housing budget, essentially you put housing authorities in an untenable position. The only way they can get the money they need to function is . . . grab more rent and push out very poor people for a little more wealthier people," said Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.).

There have been contentious debates over how to handle the Brooke Amendment of 1968, which requires most public housing tenants be charged a portion of their income as rent. Since 1981, the portion has been 30 percent.

Last year, Lazio demanded an outright repeal of the amendment, arguing that it discouraged tenants from improving their circumstances by finding jobs or by working overtime to increase their income.

Despite the House's 315-107 passage of the bill last year, and unanimous passage in the Senate of a more modest measure, House-Senate negotiations on a final version broke down largely due to discord over the Brooke Amendment.

Lazio's revamped bill requires housing authorities annually to give tenants the choice of paying either 30 percent of their income or a flat "market rent" for their unit. Although Democrats are not completely satisfied with the proposal, members of both parties suggest a compromise acceptable to both sides is now likely.

Still, the same competing concerns will play out in a related argument on "income mix" targets for housing authorities.

Lazio wants to eliminate rules that reserve a portion of openings in public housing units to the very poor. His bill only would require that 35 percent of a public housing authority's overall population qualify as "very-low income" (in Chicago, $16,740 per year for a family of four).

Tenant advocacy groups have calculated that, nationally, housing authorities pressing for higher rental income could go the next 17 years without admitting any new "very-low income" tenants and still meet the requirement.

Although Lazio says he doesn't think that housing authorities are likely to abandon the very poor, he contends, "Either you're for mixed income or you're not. You've got to deliver."

Cuomo's Housing and Urban Development Department is advocating that at least 40 percent of openings still be reserved for new tenants. And the Senate version of the GOP housing overhaul includes a similar requirement.